There are 7 messages in this issue. Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) From: Jörg Rhiemeier 1b. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) From: Herman Miller 1c. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) From: Jörg Rhiemeier 1d. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2. Pilovese Babel Text From: Scotto Hlad 3a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of infor From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4. Re: The Philosophical Language Fallacy From: David McCann Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 1a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 1:23 pm ((PDT)) Hallo! On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 16:31:06 +0200, Benct Philip Jonsson wrote: > IMHO there is a distinction to be made between > using a taxonomy to decide which meanings to > provide words for and using a taxonomic morphology > if the Wilkinsian kind. Yes. Actually, I use a general taxonomy of ideas to organize the vocabulary of Old Albic. The words are not derived in form from the taxonomy - they are as arbitrary as in any natlang - it is just that I set up several classes which I fill with dictionary entries. A great way to get a well- rounded vocabulary; you instantly see which fields of discourse need more work. (Actually, the idea is not mine but Mark Rosenfelder's: http://www.zompist.com/thematic.htm I also based the taxonomy I use on his, though I have modified it in places.) > The latter clearly leads > to the problem you describe, especially if the sub- > distinguishing morphemes are only one phoneme > long, which opens a whole other can of worms, viz. > whether short morphemes are a virtue in themselves > and how much redundancy is desirable (once one has > decided that redundancy is desirable in the first > place, which the likes of Wilkins seem not to have > understood in the first place). Yes. Wilkins did not realize that redundancy in languages is not a bug but a feature, and wanted to design a language which avoids all "unnecessary baggage" of natlangs. The result is an awfully nonredundant language. This is a problem which befouls not only Wilkins-style taxonomic languages but "speedtalk"-style systems in general. > One strategy which > might help would be to use morphemes which are > meaningful in themselves for the sub-distinctions, > a bit like is done in Chinese compounds (e.g. "pomacea- > sweet" vs. "pomacea-sour" for 'pear' vs. 'apple'. > That there are apples which are very sweet is > beyond the point; the typical apple is sourer than > the typical pear). Yes. Compounding is a very useful and also natural device. However, if you use a closed set of roots, your compounds soon get pretty long and clumsy. Any taxonomic language likely will need compounding beyond the taxonomic derivation of the lexemes, I guess. On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:57:48 -0400, Herman Miller wrote: > Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway, I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived place names from geographic coordinates! > but that could be > an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name, > like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these > sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You > could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone" > if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system. Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well. The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though, as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you can pronounce it, of course.) I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread. The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However, only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are actually used - because those names quickly become very long and unwieldy. ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf Messages in this topic (7) ________________________________________________________________________ 1b. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) Posted by: "Herman Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 3:53 pm ((PDT)) Jörg Rhiemeier wrote: > Hallo! >> Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway, > > I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived > place names from geographic coordinates! I hadn't thought of that. Kind of like the systematic naming of stars in some star catalogs. >> but that could be >> an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name, >> like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these >> sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You >> could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone" >> if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system. > > Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well. > The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists > of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables > long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though, > as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you > can pronounce it, of course.) "Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish "metal (reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't think of any other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal these days. But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single morphemes in a limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse, if you have to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from a limited vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?). You could paraphrase it as "cow bread". > I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread. > The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like > a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from > elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds > are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can > derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However, > only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are > actually used - because those names quickly become very long > and unwieldy. I could use some 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione right now. Let me find those Camellia sinensis leaves I've got around here somewhere and heat some hydrogen hydroxide to put them in. Messages in this topic (7) ________________________________________________________________________ 1c. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) Posted by: "Jörg Rhiemeier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 5:30 am ((PDT)) Hallo! On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 18:51:59 -0400, Herman Miller wrote: > Jörg Rhiemeier wrote: > > Hallo! > > >> Well, proper names aren't usually translated anyway, > > > > I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived > > place names from geographic coordinates! > > I hadn't thought of that. Kind of like the systematic naming of stars in > some star catalogs. Yes. > >> but that could be > >> an issue if the standard name for something is based on a proper name, > >> like "hamburger" from Hamburg, or "watt" from James Watt. Some of these > >> sorts of names could be fit into an oligosynthetic scheme, I guess. You > >> could have "single reed conical metal wind instrument" for "saxophone" > >> if naming it after Adolphe Sax doesn't fit well into your system. > > > > Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well. > > The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists > > of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables > > long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though, > > as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you > > can pronounce it, of course.) > > "Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish "metal > (reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't think of any > other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal these days. > But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single morphemes in a > limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse, if you have > to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from a limited > vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?). You could > paraphrase it as "cow bread". Sure. That's the way compounding works in natlangs: not every single chunk of information needed to uniquely define the thing goes into the compound, but only some salient features, such as the blackness and the birdness in the case of _blackbird_, even though there is more to being a blackbird than just being black and a bird. (German uses the entirely arbitrary monomorphemic word _Amsel_ for the same species.) > > I have mentioned chemical nomenclature earlier in this thread. > > The "rational nomenclature" of chemistry works quite much like > > a taxonomic language: the "rational" names are build from > > elements which represent the atoms and atom groups the compounds > > are made of, and are compounded in such a way that you can > > derive the structure of the molecule from the name. However, > > only with rather simple compounds, such rational names are > > actually used - because those names quickly become very long > > and unwieldy. > > I could use some 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione right now. > Let me find those Camellia sinensis leaves I've got around here > somewhere and heat some hydrogen hydroxide to put them in. :) ... brought to you by the Weeping Elf Messages in this topic (7) ________________________________________________________________________ 1d. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was ...) Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:34 am ((PDT)) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Herman Miller > > I have seen at least one taxonomic language scheme that derived > > place names from geographic coordinates! That sounds like the kooky scheme of Ygyde. The idea isn't bad for an artlang, but this is being promoted as an IAL. I just can't see people walking around with GPS's to find out the names of places. > > Your 'saxophone' example illustrates the problem very well. > > The compounds get very long and clumsy. Your compound consists > > of (at least) six morphemes, and in English, it is 12 syllables > > long. (In a speetalk-type language, this is not a problem though, > > as the whole shebang will be just six phonemes. As long as you > > can pronounce it, of course.) > > "Metal reed instrument" might suffice, if you can distinguish "metal > (reed instrument)" from "(metal reed) instrument". I can't think of any > other common reed instrument that's typically made of metal these days. The saxophone is classified as a woodwind because of the reed. You could taxonomically place it somewhere in a "woodwind" category. Then realize there are several type of the sax: baritone, tenor, alto, and soprano. > But "reed" and "instrument" are unlikely to be single morphemes in a > limited-vocabulary language. But "hamburger" could be worse, if you have > to come up with a word for "cow" and a word for "bread" from a limited > vocabulary ("cooked cow meat between round bread slices"?). You could > paraphrase it as "cow bread". "grind-meat sandwich" Messages in this topic (7) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 2. Pilovese Babel Text Posted by: "Scotto Hlad" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat Jul 5, 2008 1:48 pm ((PDT)) Good afternoon everyone, After a long hiatus, I have completed the Pilovese Babel text. I lost the original one and I actually like this translation much better. I have only put an English translation beside it, I´m thinking I should also add an Xsampa transcription, but I´m not sure as I hope I will soon be adding a recording as well. Follow the link: http://www3.telus.net/scottoh/pilovese/texts.htm Scotto Messages in this topic (1) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 3a. Re: The philosophical language fallacy (was Re: Evanescence of infor Posted by: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 9:29 am ((PDT)) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jorg Rhiemeier > On the other hand, one should indeed have more than one conlang > going. Otherwise, you are likely to incorporate all your ideas > in one conlang and thus end up with a kitchen sink language or > whatever. I have several ideas which I wish to try out, but > which I feel have no room in Old Albic. So I apply them to other > conlang projects - some of them diachronically related to Old > Albic, others not. I agree. A lot of my projects are mainly to experiment with ideas which may or may not find their way into other creations depending on how the experimentation goes. > On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 23:14:05 -0400, Dana Nutter wrote: > > > This is why I gave up on that approach a long time ago. I do > > still see value in an oligosynthetic system. At least there > > will be some mnemonics to aid in learning vocabulary. > > Oligosynthetic schemes suffer from many, though not all, of the > problems that weigh down taxonomic schemes. It is not easy to > break down reality to a restricted number of semantic primitives, > and how do you handle proper names and such? You need an "escape > mechanism" which allows for "importing" arbitrary lexical material. > At least that is what I feel to be the case. No, it's not easy but it's only difficult if you take it to extremes as with AUI or Toki Pona. I have an oligosynthetic project in the works, but there is also a phonosemantic schema that will underly the root morphemes. It's just an idea I'm playing with right now. I don't expect to reduce everything down to 32 roots, though I'd be happy to get it down to the 500-600 range. Proper names will be handled as distinct entities based on pronunciation. There will be a particle to introduce them. Messages in this topic (10) ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Re: The Philosophical Language Fallacy Posted by: "David McCann" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun Jul 6, 2008 11:10 am ((PDT)) On Sat, 2008-07-05, Joerg Rhiemier wrote: > Yes. Compounding is a very useful and also natural device. > However, if you use a closed set of roots, your compounds > soon get pretty long and clumsy. This is rather a matter of taste. In English and, to a lesser extent, German, we are used to a lot of short words. If you speak Mohawk, then yontaterihonnyennìtha must sound no stranger than "school". For a conlang, using a very large set of phonemes, Circassian or Nootka style, to get an ample supply of monosyllabic roots would help: I'm currently thinking of doing a language with words of the Æâïnmoq`raÊħÉɬ type. The real problem of starting with a thesaurus in ones own language is the semantic bias. An English or German speaker with verbs of movement like "push" and "roll" might not consider the Romance system with verbs of motion encoding direction, or the Athabascan one with verbs encoding the shape or consistency of the moving object. Messages in this topic (1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/ <*> Your email settings: Digest Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/conlang/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------